M/S Aamna Parween vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner

Held

The Court held that it was not precluded from interfering with the impugned order, even with an alternative remedy available, if the order was ex facie bad in law. The Court found two primary reasons for interference: (a) a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded sufficient time to present their case, and (b) the ex parte assessment order lacked sufficient reasoning to justify the determined amount due. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated January 31, 2020, the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated February 2, 2020, and the appellate order dated March 4, 2021. The Court directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner was directed to deposit ten percent of the total demand amount within four weeks, in addition to the ten percent already deposited as a prerequisite for appeal hearing. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, preferably within two months from the petitioner's appearance. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues were left open.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 31, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner's bank accounts were attached. A summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 was issued on February 2, 2020. The petitioner appealed this order, but the appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) on March 4, 2021, solely on the ground of delay. The Revenue opposed the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court is precluded from interfering with the impugned order despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, given the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and the ex parte nature of the assessment order? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the High Court should interfere notwithstanding the alternative remedy because the impugned order was bad in law due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically a lack of sufficient opportunity to be heard. The assessment order was passed ex parte without sufficient reasoning. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the availability of an equally alternative efficacious remedy.